Advances in medicine and public health have already raised life expectancies around the globe. It is likely this trend will continue. At the same time, advances in medical technology and biotech may mean that we can prolong individual lives for a much greater period than we can currently. If this means that there are more people living to what we would consider extreme old age (150+, perhaps), then what could this mean for philanthropy?

The most impact is that it will change the landscape of legacy giving. Either people will continue with their intention to give when they die, and that day will be pushed further into the future so the legacy is delayed; or many people might decide to give within their own lifetimes instead, so we will see a major shift away from legacy giving towards giving while living. This latter scenario seems more likely when you consider that a major extension of life expectancy would presumably result in a longer period of post-work life (assuming we’re not all replaced by robots anyway …), and that people would thus have more time to dedicate to a second "philanthropy career" once they have finished their primary career.

What would whole-brain emulation mean for philanthropy? If such emulations counted as legal continuations of the original person, then presumably they would retain control over any philanthropic assets. But if emulations had a different legal status, then there might be questions about where control of philanthropic assets lay after the point of death of the original individual, which might prove awkward ... Imagine, for a second, how difficult things might get for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or the Ford Foundation if Rowntree and Ford were still around in emulation form and had a seat on the board.

Read the full article about life-extension and philanthropy by Rhodri Davies at Charities Aid Foundation.